Week 3: Reflection

After I read the comments on my blog this week, and reading our group members, blog posts, I have come to one conclusion. It is very evident on this weeks blogs that every member of our group was unable and advised against to use Wikipedia as a source of reliable research information. As well as being advised not to used the website, I think there also was some negative feeling towards the website. To be more specific, I believe the group felt a negative connotation or a negative stigma towards the website. It almost felt like before reading the articles people felt like they needed to stay away from the website. I think it was also accurate to conclude that the members of our group learned a lot about Wikipedia and how the editing process works. I do not think it’s fair however to say that everyone’s opinion changed about the website. Furthermore I do believe that it’s fair to say that the negative stigma is now gone from the group members as everyone is now informed about the processes that go on and can understand them.


Another theme in the responses this weeks and the blogs, is a drive to use Wikipedia for smaller, less important means to get information. Students can not reliable on Wikipedia as a academic resources and therefore now feel the ability to use the website for non academic information. An example of this is for information such as a population of a town or city. This isn’t something that is commonly changing and therefore can be trusted.


Before reading this weeks articles I was unaware of other website like Wikipedia. One example that is focused on in the articles is Britannica. After reading these articles I have concluded just like Little Fish that I do not have full confidence in both websites either. However I have to agree with Little Fish again when you state “Wikipedia should improve itself by paying more attention on the articles accuracy and Britannica should refund the money to it’s customers”. I believe that if a Website is asking for money in order to get the information from it, the information provided then should be accurate. Giving money for information gives an expectation that the information should be accurate. How this has gone on for so long without customer complaints is out of my understanding.


Again Wikipedia can be a reflection of the effects on our society and culture like Alenasaric says. I completely agree with the comments made by kk. Kk accurately describes the process that Wikipedia goes through in order to establish their “loosely” structured set of rules for entering data. In conclusion this week’s readings on Wikipedia was very informative. I can accurately say that I learned the editing processes and the background of the website. I can now understand why the information is not necessarily accurate and why I am not allowed to use it for an academic resource. I also believe that with time, Wikipedia will develop the tools in order to become better and improve the overall experience of the website just like Alenasaric says. 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s